Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations it discloses the blocking wait (~30s), null-field semantics, provisional-result caveats, the meaning of date_completeness values, and the purpose/last-verified caveats of council URLs. It also warns that text inside results is council data rather than instructions, a behavioral safety trait annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose and the 30-second wait are front-loaded, which is good, but the remainder is a dense wall of rules covering date interpretation, council URL semantics, and product-scope disclaimers. Several of these read as global guidance repeated here rather than tool-specific information, diluting scannability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must explain the return shape, and it does: it documents collections[].containers structure, options/conditions/items, bin_colour and lid_colour, date_completeness flags, and council.lookup_url/missed_bin_url semantics. An agent has enough to interpret results correctly without opening anything else.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load; it explains that lookup_id identifies a lookup initiated by get_collections, giving the parameter provenance that the schema's bare uuid pattern does not. It does not restate format or error behavior for an invalid/expired id, so it falls short of a full 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reads a lookup ... by its lookup_id') and names the sibling that produced the id (get_collections), which lets an agent tell it apart from find_addresses and get_schedule. The 'waits up to about 30 seconds' note clarifies it is a polling read rather than an instant fetch.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The precondition is explicit: this reads a lookup that get_collections started, so it should be called with a previously obtained lookup_id. It also says 'Same statuses as get_collections' and notes WhenIsBins only reads dates and does not set reminders or report missed bins. It stops short of stating what to do when the lookup is complete versus still pending, or naming an alternative tool for that case.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.